I turned on the telly and found myself watching this film, so I stuck with it. When I watched it before I thought it was about attitudes to education. Do you teach young people to value the treasures of your civilization, or do you teach them to know some tricks of argument and "gobbets of knowledge" that will enable them to impress others, e.g. to pass the entrance interview for Oxford or Cambridge? What about "facts, facts, facts" - is that the right approach?
But this time around I wasn't so struck by the arguments of the educators, I was more interested in what they now call "sexual politics". I don't think it used to have a name. In any group, there is one who stands out as seeing themselves as a sexual "prize" and whom others lust after. And because others lust after that person, he is in a strong position, while those who desire are weak and vulnerable. Being weak and vulnerable is painful for anyone, but for a schoolboy it is surely terrible because it's new. It's a great burden to carry around.
Then the teachers who are in the same (desirous) position can look ridiculous, faced with a strong feeling that they have to master. (Can anyone control their blushes?) Carpe Diem is a young person's watchword, because for anyone in a position of responsibility there is also the need to "keep it in your pants".
One reviewer pointed out that teaching can be an erotic thing and this is true. It's a sexiness of the mind, I think. On the teacher's part you have something valuable to share, and in response, on the students' part, there should be a striving to impress. As a teacher, you have to be disappointed by bad work and reward good work. You are the judge, standing slightly aloof, whose approval has to be won. Therefore, it is vital not to appear weak and ridiculous. Luckily, I have not been in this position but I am sorry for the teachers who fall, especially the gay ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment